Hi Marek,
actually, there were two reasons for renaming that I guess. One was out of "laziness" and I wanted to keep the number of parameters of a BAT_ATTR_* macro as less as possible. Otherwise I'd have to have another field, one for stating the name in sysfs and one for the name in bat_priv.
I then was wondering why the names between sysfs and bat_priv shouldn't be the same instead (or +_enabled for switch/bool attributes). I could have renamed the part in bat_priv to aggregate_ogms_enabled but found that a little long (the same for fragmentation_enabled). Or the _enabled parts could be removed in bat_priv, but making it less obvious, what kind of values they might take.
So I thought that just aggregation might be a good trade-off. And that anyone who might be confused by the names, not knowing what they might be used for, should use batctl instead (and its manpage for explanations).
Or would anybody prefer another solution (of the ones described above)?
Cheers, Linus
On Sun, Oct 10, 2010 at 02:42:08PM +0200, Marek Lindner wrote:
On Sunday 10 October 2010 06:29:58 Linus Lüssing wrote:
Additionally, the sysfs entries "aggregate_ogms" and "fragmentation" get renamed to "aggregation" and "frag" for consistency reasons, they match the *_enabled parts in bat_priv now.
I don't quite understand why you want to rename these names. I like the "aggregate_ogms" as it makes clear what is being aggregated.
Please keep in mind that the kernel people won't be happy if we modify the user space API. Right now, it is less of an issue but once we leave the staging tree it is mostly unchangeable.
Regards, Marek